CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The Director General of Police,Chennai-2.2.The Commissioner of Police,Madurai City, Madurai-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 23-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.381 of 2007(O.A.No.652 of 2001)Palanichamy.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Director General of Police,Chennai-2.2.The Commissioner of Police,Madurai City, Madurai-1... Respondents.Prayer: Original Application No.652 of 2001 filed before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the fileof this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.381 of 2007, seekingfor a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the recordspertaining to the endorsement passed by the second respondent inC.No.A1/64396/99, dated 9.1.2000, (also DTO message DTO 092100 inC.O.Rc.154645/NGB IV(3)/98, dt.9.10.1998) and quash the same and todirect the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the `C'list of Head Constables found fit for promotion as Sub Inspector ofPolice (Local) 1998 at the appropriate place above his immediatejunior and to award all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.SoundararajanFor Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government PleaderO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner had been enlisted as a Grade-II Police Constable,on 18.10.1972. He was promoted as a Head Constable, on 16.9.1994. Hehad been in service for more than 27 years, without any blemish.While so, the Chief Office had issued a memorandum, dated 29.9.1998,to convene a Range Promotion Board for Head Constables/Temporary SubInspectors, for those who had not crossed 53 years of age, as on1.7.1988 and for those who have had four years of service, as a HeadConstable, with a minimum total service of seven years. Pursuant tothe said memorandum, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, hadissued a Circular to all the Inspectors of Police, Assistant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners by his proceedings, dated7.10.1998, calling the Head Constables, who were fit to promotion, asSub Inspectors, to appear for a written test to be conducted, on16.9.1998. Even though the petitioner was fully qualified toparticipate in the Range Promotion Board, he was not called for thewritten test. Pursuant to the representation made by the petitionerto the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, an order had been issuedstating that all aspects, such as age of the Head Constable, as wellas the service rendered by him would be taken into account, in viewof the crucial date, which had been fixed, as 1.7.1998. The impugnedorder, dated 9.1.2000, which states that since the petitioner had notcompleted four years of service, as a Head Constable, as on 1.7.1998,he was not called to participate in the promotion tests, is arbitraryand illegal. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents ithas been stated that the petitioner was enlisted, as a Grade IIPolice Constable, on 18.10.1972 and he was promoted, as a HeadConstable, on 16.9.1994. Based on the orders passed by the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal, instructions had been issued for convening aRange Promotion Board, to conduct promotion tests for the drawal of`C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion, as Sub Inspectors, forthe year, 1998. Pursuant to the said orders, the Director General ofPolice, Chennai, had issued directions to all Range Deputy InspectorGenerals of Police and Commissioners of Police to convene RangePromotion Boards, for the preparation of `C' list of Head Constablesfit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police, for the year, 1998,subject to their satisfying certain conditions. The Head Constablesmust have a good working knowledge in English. They must not havecompleted 53 years of age on the first day of the July of the year,in which the selection is made. They must have completed 7 years oftotal service and should have served as Head Constables, on permanentor officiating capacity, for not less than four years on the date ofthe commencement of the test. The petitioner had been promoted as aHead Constable, on 16.9.1994. He had completed four years of servicein the category of Head Constable, on 15.9.1998. He was not eligiblefor the promotion test and therefore, he was not called for the saidtest. The petitioner had completed four years of service, as a HeadConstable, only on 15.9.1998, whereas the first respondent had fixedthe crucial date, as 1.7.1988, for the drawal of the `C' list of Headconstables, fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police, for theyear, 1998. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner cannotbe sustained. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadsubmitted that the petitioner was enlisted as a Grade-II PoliceConstable, on 18.10.1972, and he was promoted as a Head Constable, on16.9.1994. As such, he should have completed four years of service,as a Head constable, on 15.9.1998. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submittedthat the qualification for Head Constables to be considered forpromotion as Sub Inspectors of Police, they must have a good workingknowledge of English and they must have completed 53 years of age on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the first day of the month of July of the year in which theselection, for promotion of Head Constables as Sub Inspectors ofPolice, is held. They must have completed a total service of sevenyears and they must have served as Head Constables, whether permanentor officiating, for a period of not less than of four years, on thedate of the commencement of the training. According to the saidGovernment Order, a person must have served as a Head Constable for aperiod not less than four months from the commencement of thetraining, which would be after the process of promotion is completed.Even if the averment, made in the reply affidavit that a person musthave not less than four years of service, as a Head Constable, on thedate of the commencement of the test, is taken to be correct, thepetitioner would have been qualified for being considered to bepromoted as a Sub Inspector of Police. According to the memorandumissued on behalf of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, dated29.9.1998, the written test was scheduled to be conducted, on16.10.1998, and the training would have commenced only after6.11.1998. On the said date, the petitioner would have completed fouryears of service, as a Head Constable. The contention raised onbehalf of the respondents that the petitioner should have completedfour years of service, as a Head Constable, as on the crucial date,which was fixed, as 1.7.1998, cannot be held to be valid, as it iscontrary to the rules and the regulations applicable to the case ofthe petitioner. 6. The learned counsel had submitted that a Division Bench ofthis Court, by an order, dated 18.3.2005, made in W.P.No.21652 of2003, arising under similar circumstances, had issued directions toinclude the name of the candidate in the `C' List of Head Constables,fit for promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police, for the concernedyear, at the bottom of the said list. However, it was made clear thathe would not be entitled to get any monetary benefits due to suchinclusion. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents,and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that thepetitioner was qualified to be considered for promotion as a Sub-Inspector of Police, in the year 1998. The contentions raised onbehalf of the respondents that the petitioner ought to have completedfour years of service, as a Head Constable, as on 1.7.1998, cannot becountenanced. Since the petitioner had not completed 53 years of age,as on the first day of July, 1998, and as he had completed four yearsof service, as a Head Constable, on 15.9.1998, before the process ofselection, for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police, had commenced,the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondents forbeing promoted as a Sub Inspector of Police. The learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondents has not been in a position toshow as to how the crucial date of 1.7.1998, could be taken intoconsideration for calculating the length of service of the petitioneras a Head Constable, contrary to the Service Rules and the GovernmentOrders applicable to the petitioner. No clear explanation has beenput forth on behalf of the respondents to sustain the averments madein the reply affidavit filed on their behalf. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the secondrespondent, dated 9.1.2000, is set aside and the respondents aredirected to include the name of the petitioner, at the bottom of the`C' list of Head Constables, fit for promotion as Sub Inspector ofPolice, for the year, 1998, only for the purpose of calculating hisseniority in service. However, it is made clear that no monetarybenefits would accrue to the petitioner, as a consequence of thisorder. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Director General of Police,Chennai-2.2.The Commissioner of Police,Madurai City, Madurai-1.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.34261.Writ Petition No.381 of 2007 BVN(CO)RVL 17.08.2009